During the 17 and 18th centuries, Western Europe entered into a period known as the enlightenment. The enlightenment gets its name from the fact that people living during that era believed that they were living in enlightened times compared to previous generations. With regard to science, they were right. They witnessed unprecedented scientific discovery. However, at the same time, the enlightenment was un-enlightening in a spiritual sense. It produced a spiritual malaise in science that continues to this day.

Efforts to minimize the role of deity during the enlightenment were largely spearheaded by French thinkers known as philosophes, such as Diderot (1713-1784), Voltaire (1694-1778), and Montesquieu (1689-1755). These philosophes were writers and publicists who read abstruse scientific treatises and books by theistic scientists like Newton and Galileo, and re-wrote them in the vernacular. In these re-writings the philosophes downplayed the role of deity and eliminated references to a higher power while elevating human reason and scientific experimentation as the great arbiters of truth. As a result, Western European science became prideful of its scientific accomplishments and few scholars were willing to recognize the influence and handiwork of the Almighty.

One can imagine how the theist pioneers of modern science might have felt about the secularization of science. Science historian Brian Silver gives us some idea. Regarding the enlightenment, he wrote, "Newton neither foresaw nor intended any of this. He was not the John the Baptist of [i.e., the one who prepared the way for] the enlightenment, and he would not have been at home with its ideals." I am certain that the same could be said for other theists like Boyle, Descartes, and Galileo.

As the influence of deity was being removed from science, some scholars filled the void by championing a watered down belief system known as deism. Bruce R. McConkie described deism as "the partial acceptance of God, that is, deists profess to believe in him as the Creator of the world . . . but they reject the idea that he rules over or guides men during the interval between the creation and the judgment." In other words, deists believe that the Lord is a disinterested creator whose only involvement with humanity occurred during the creation. They assert that after the creation he left the world to run on its own according to natural laws that he had established. He is like a watchmaker who, after building a watch and setting it to work on its own, has no continual involvement with its function. Why is deism popular today? The answer is that it allows us to recognize a supreme creator while preserving the notion that natural laws are the only forces at work in the world. Thus we can go on with science and focus on natural law-driven processes without having to consider the possibility of other forces. This fits nicely with our modern understanding of science as being concerned with natural, not supernatural forces. Sounds good, right?

While believing in a creator is better than believing in none at all, there is a downside to deism. Because it rejects divine involvement, deism denies the mission of the Jesus Christ, thus rejecting the Savior’s atonement. Consider also that if, as deists claim, the creator does not reveal himself to his creations, then he is unknowable. The belief that he is unknowable has led to some obscure deistic conceptions about God. For example, according to one deist, the creator is “the ground and source of our sense of wonderment, of power, of powerlessness, of light, of dark, of meaning, and of bafflement. . . . It is the god of mystics of all cultures and creeds. We look out into the sea of mystery and speak his name. His name eludes all creeds and theories of science. He is indeed the ‘dread essence beyond logic.’” I think it would be difficult communing with such a god.

Other deists equate God with nature, a belief known as pantheism. A 17th century scholar who promoted this view was Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza’s phrase “Deus sive Natura,” or “God or Nature”, suggests that the creator is nature, the structure of the cosmic order, operating according to blind universal laws and devoid of divine purpose. “Spinoza’s God . . . [can]not be spoken to, [does] not respond if prayed to, [and is] very much in every particle of the universe.” Similar pantheistic-style beliefs have influenced scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Is it any wonder, then, that deists view the creator as a detached and impersonal entity? Certainly it would be difficult communing with such a god, but then again, why pray when no one is really listening?

Finally, because scientific deists are not big on prayer, they are unlikely to petition the creator for assistance in their endeavors. How many missed opportunities has science encountered? I wonder where science would be today if most scientists humbled themselves in prayer and asked for help? We will never know. Equally important is the issue of ingratitude. The creator is the main benefactor of scientific knowledge and discovery, yet deists who don’t realize this are unlikely to give thanks for breakthroughs. In the true spirit of the enlightenment, they think that science and reason did it all. Joseph F. Smith put it this way:

In all the great modern discoveries in science, in the arts, in mechanics, and in all material advancement of the age, the world says, "We have done it." The individual says, "I have done it," and he gives no honor or credit to God. Now, I read in the revelations through Joseph Smith, the prophet, that because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things.

It seems to me this belief stems from their own desires rather than anything else. For someone who wanted to do whatever they wanted, it would be nice if there were no God or at best an uninvolved God.

The minute a man of science says there is a God that places requirements on mankind, then that scientist has to live up to whatever those requirements are.

So the lack of belief becomes a matter of convienence as much as anything else.

Reply

Stan Beale

11/15/2011 09:15:02 pm

This is a very nice summary of "pure" deism. However, I have two points of concern that I believed that you left out.

First, not every deist was so pure in their beliefs. If you will, there were some "menu" deists. The divinity of Christ, for example, is an area where deists often differed.

Second, deism is in part a rational rejection of bad theistic science. The Catholic Church, as a case in point, did not accept a heliocentric solar system till 1835. Deism became a place where one could still believe in God but not be hemmed in by religious based bad science.

Jefferson's treatment of the development of the Earth in his Notes on the State of Virginia a good example of this struggle (he refutes the existance of the Great Flood). Other than developing your own religion and science theoretical structure, Deism was the only available rational home for Scientists of the time.

Reply

Dave C.

11/17/2011 05:14:21 am

Stan,

Thanks for your reply. I have never heard of menu deists before. You are welcome to share and I am curious to hear more.

I am not so sure that deism was a rejection of bad theistic science, which in this case was medieval scholasticism. Scholasticism had already been largely overthrown during the 16th century scientific revolution that preceeded the enlightenment. Thanks to men like Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, it was no longer a threat to rigorous science. The enlightenment was more likely a reflection of growing secularism.

Reply

Brad W.

11/18/2011 06:50:52 am

Thanks Dave for that most excellent article. I have often come across those terms in my reading but never took the time to look up their meaning. I look forward to your thoughts on scientific atheism.

Reply

Dave C

11/18/2011 04:49:13 pm

Thanks for dropping by and giving the post a thumbs up!

Reply

Hasquatch

12/5/2011 06:01:28 pm

Are you serious? Why would such a god be so "angry"? How can a diety or whatever have a human emotion as such? This is ridiculous, to think that if there is a god, that it requires those who it created to worship and thank it for things it gave to the things it created. That's like if I made a bunch of rats, and then allowed for them to be able to figure something out that they have to thank me for it?

Reply

Dave C

12/6/2011 04:36:00 am

Hasquatch,

The Christian God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses in the Bible wants us to turn unto him and worship him. As he says in the Bible, I am a jealous God. At the same time he is a loving God who wants to bless humankind according to their obedience, thus he is imbued with emotion. I hope you find him someday. I don't worship him solely out of a sense of duty, but rather out of a sense of love for what he has done for me and my family.

Reply

Gordon Guymon

12/7/2011 03:42:40 am

I thank God everyday for the knowledge He has given to us. I have such a good life and do not mind Cleaning The Restrooms of the Lord to show my small, humble gratitude.